• @givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    410 hours ago

    Usually it’s forced arbitration, you can’t sue

    It really favors the company. Steam is explicitly saying no arbitration which levels the playing field.

    Arbitration doesn’t save money. You still need lawyers.

    What’s bigger is this explicitly says it allows class actions. Something that most prevent and require individual arbitration, consumers are better off when they can pool resources for lawyers against a giant corporation, especially since most would require an upfront payment for a large class action.

    • Hannes
      link
      fedilink
      English
      08 hours ago

      Arbitration doesn’t save money. You still need lawyers.

      of course - but usually it’s way faster than getting a proper court-ruling - and since lawyers are paid per hour that makes a big difference

      • @givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 hours ago

        I’ve literally never seen any person argue that forced arbitration is a good thing for consumers…

        It’s always corporations

        • Hannes
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          How often are you reading about someone suing and then that lawsuit (which is already in court) being dropped because they got a better offer for an arbitration/settlement out of court? For me that’s a very common thing to read for bigger cases.

          But I agree that forced arbitration with not even a chance to take it to court if you don’t like the offer is horrible for the consumer

        • @moody
          link
          English
          17 hours ago

          That’s because the arbitrators are hired by the company. Unless it’s an egregious situation, who’s going to side against the people signing their paycheck?